february 4 th , 2013 nacp all investigators meeting, albuquerque, nm deborah huntzinger

Multi-Scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project – A

Systematic Approach for Evaluating Land-Atmosphere Flux Estimates

February 4th, 2013NACP All Investigators Meeting, Albuquerque, NM

Deborah Huntzinger C. Schwalm, A. Michalak, W. Post, K. Schaefer, A. Jacobson. Y.

Wei, R. Cook, & MsTMIP Participants

Future projections depend, in part, on ability to model land-atmosphere

carbon exchange

Huntzinger et al. (2012) Ecological Modeling

Friedlingstein et al. 2006

Land surfac

eModels

Policy and management

choices

Input data Initial conditions

Parameter values

AssumptionsProcess

inclusion & formulation

Understanding of system /

Input data Initial conditions

Parameter values

AssumptionsProcess

inclusion & formulation

How do intermodel differences influence variability or uncertainty in model results?

Parametric uncertainty

Structural uncertainty:In order to quantify, need:

• Large community of models• Strict simulation protocol

Multi-scale Synthesis & Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP)

Unique in several ways:• Two spatial scales: Global (0.5° by 0.5°); North America

(0.25° by 0.25°);• Two distinct sets of standardized environmental input data

– Climate, land cover & land-use/land-cover change history, phenology, atmospheric CO2, nitrogen deposition rates, soil, C3/C4 grass, major crops

• Includes over 20 different TBMs• 110-year simulation period (1901-2010)• 10 different simulations model to assess sensitivity to

different forcing factors• Evaluation of model performance against available

observations (benchmarking)

Order Domain Code Climate LULUC Atm. CO2 Nitrogen1

Global

RG1 ConstantConstant

ConstantConstant

2 SG1Time-

varying(CRU+NCE

P)

3 SG2Time-

varying (Hurtt)

4 SG3Time-

varying5 BG1 Time-varying

Reference simulations spin-up run out to 2010

Sensitivity simulations turn one variable component on at a time to systematically test the impact of climate variability, CO2 fertilization, nitrogen limitation, and land cover / land-use change on carbon exchange.

Baseline simulations model’s best estimate of net land-atmosphere carbon flux (everything turned on)

MsTMIP Simulations: Global

1801 1901 1980 2010

Start with steady-state initial conditions

Start monthly output

Start 3-hourly output

Stop

Changing land-use, land-cover, CO2 concentrations, nitrogen deposition rates, etc.

MsTMIP experimental design represents a set of collective hypotheses:

– Strict protocol isolate sources of differences

– Similar structural characteristics similar estimates of fluxes, carbon

pools, etc.– Sensitivity to forcing factors will differ

among models

NACP Regional Interim

Synthesis vs. MsTMIP

Mean GPP for North America (2000-2005)

5 models (CLM, DLEM, LPJ, ORCHIDEE, VEGAS)

RangeInterquartile rangeMedian

Huntzinger et al., (2012) GMD in prep.

Does strict protocol help to isolate sources if different in model output?

MsTMIP modelsSteady-state results

10 models

• GPP varies by factor of 2 in tropics

• Soil carbon pool size in NHL ranges from 5 – 60 kg C m-2

• Total living biomass varies by factor of 3.5 in tropics

RangeInterquartile rangeMedian

Huntzinger et al., (2012) GMD in prep.

“Best estimate” (1982 -2010)

9 models (BIOME-BGC, CLM, CLM4ViC, DLEM, LPJ, ORCHIDEE, TRIPLEX-GHGm, VEGAS, VISIT)

Total living biomass

RangeInterquartile rangeMedian

75%90%95%

“Hot spots” of interannual variability (IAV)

(1982-2010)Map highlights areas where the models show the greatest degree of interannual variability (IAV)

Compare simulated GPP to other GPP products:

MODIS-GPP (Zhao and Running, 2010)MPI-BGC (Jung et al., 2011)

MsTMIP experimental design represents a set of collective hypotheses:

– Strict protocol isolate sources of differences

– Similar structural characteristics similar estimates of fluxes, carbon

pools, etc.– Sensitivity to forcing factors will differ

among modelsNeed to identify models that share similar characteristics

Visualizing model structural differences using dendrograms

Huntzinger et al., (2012) GMD in prep.

Do models with similar structural characteristics will have similar estimates of flux?

Overall model structural differences

Mean global GPP (1982-2010)

Model sensitivity to different environmental drivers

Global Net GPP

Change in GPP (relative to SS) with each simulation

Nitrogen dynamics

Time-varying atmospheric CO2

Time-varying climate

Land-use, land-cover change history

Dynamic Land Ecosystem Model (DLEM)

Additive change in GPP attributed to different forcing factors

(DLEM)

LULCCClimate

Atm. CO2

N-cycling

Model sensitivity to different environmental drivers (1982-2010)

Summary and what’s next• We can evaluate model results in a

way that was not possible with the NACP regional synthesis activity:– Attribute inter-model variability to

structural differences – Quantify sensitivity of models (and their

estimates) to forcing factors• Model-data evaluation

(benchmarking) is currently underway. Will evaluate model performance as a function of:– Domain (Site, North America, Global)– Spatial and temporal resolution of driver

data• MsTMIP workshop following meeting

Acknowledgements• Funding for MsTMIP:

– NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program Grant No. NNX10AG01A– NOAA

• Data/model output management and processing– MAST-DC and ORNL DAAC

• MsTMIP modeling teams:– John Kim (BIOMAP); Weile Wang (Biome-BGC ); Altaf Arain

(CLASS-CTEM-N+); Dan Hayes (CLM and TEM6); Mayoi Huang (CLM4-VIC); Hanqin Tian (DLEM); Dan Riccuito (GTEC); Tom Hilinksi (IRC/DayCent5); Atul Jain (ISAM); Ben Poulter (LPJ); Dominique Bachelet (MC1); Josh Fisher (JULES, ORCHIDEE, SIB3, Shushi Peng and Gwenaelle Berthier (ORCHIDEE); Kevin Schaefer (SiBCASA); Rob Braswell (SIPNET); Chanqhui Peng (TRIPLEX-GHG); Ning Zeng (VEGAS); Akihiko Ito (VISIT)